Read Time: 03 minutes
Kejriwal was arrested on the evening of March 21st after the high court refused to shield him from coercive actions. Subsequently, he obtained bail from the Supreme Court to continue his election campaign. He sought an extension of this relief, but both the High Court and the Supreme Court rejected his request. He then approached the trial court to seek regular bail, which was granted.
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, set aside the order of the vacation bench of the Rouse Avenue Court, which had granted bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in relation to the now-defunct liquor excise policy.
The bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain opined that the trial court's conclusion that there were 'malafide intentions on the part of the ED' was incorrect. The court had previously dismissed a similar claim made by Kejriwal in an earlier ruling.
The court upheld the Additional Solicitor General's (ASG) arguments that the trial court had disregarded the submitted documents. The court found the trial court's remarks about ‘reviewing and considering a thousand pages of documents’ to be unjustified.
The court also supported the ASG's arguments that the vacation judge had not provided the Enforcement Directorate (ED) sufficient opportunity to present their case. The primary petition's allegations required meticulous consideration by the court.
The court noted that the trial court's order had inadequately discussed the mandatory conditions under the PMLA. Additionally, it observed that the vacation judge had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's Satender Kumar Antil judgment. Moreover, the court pointed out that the vacation judge had not addressed Kejriwal's vicarious liability under section 70 of the PMLA.
Regarding the interim bail granted during elections, the court emphasized that since a coordinate bench had validated Kejriwal's arrest and remand, it could not be claimed that his personal liberty had been unlawfully infringed.
Ultimately, the court determined that the vacation judge had not properly evaluated the evidence on record and the ED's contentions.
Consequently, the court granted the appeal of ED and set aside the impugned order.
Please Login or Register
